User

Fed up with higher service charges from banks, several Americans have switched their saving accounts to credit unions or co-operative financial institutions

Last one month proved to be one of the best in terms of new customer acquisitions for credit unions or co-operative financial institutions in the US.
Quoting Credit Union National Association (CUNA), a report from Consumer Affairs, said that over the past one month credit unions have added over $4.5 billion in new savings accounts. This was a result of revolt by consumers enraged by the idea of paying privilege fees for using debit card.

Bank of America was the first (and last as well) to announce that it would charge a fee of $5 per month for customers who made purchases through their debit cards. However, it evoked a strong reaction from the bank’s customers, who declared 5th November as ‘Bank Transfer Day’. Showing similarity with the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement, on Saturday thousands of customers closed their bank accounts to switch to a local credit union.

Credit unions or co-operative financial institutions are owned, controlled and operated by its members for promoting thrift, providing credit at competitive rates and other financial services to its members. The World Council of Credit Unions (WOCCU) defines credit unions as “not-for-profit cooperative institutions”. In the US, all federal credit unions and 95% of state-chartered credit unions have deposit insurance of at least $250,000 per member through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF).

The reason why credit unions are popular in the US, at least at local level, is not just lower service charges, but also the treatment a customer receives. In a credit union, all customers are members, unlike banks where the account holder is treated more like a customer.

Quoting Bill Cheney, president and chief executive, CUNA, the report says, “The results indicate that consumers are clearly making a smarter choice by moving to credit unions where, on average, they will save about $70 a year in fewer or no fees, lower rates on loans and higher return on savings.”

US account holders may be switching to credit unions due to lower service charges and better treatment, the situation in India is completely different. The co-operative banking in India has a history of almost 100 years and some of the co-operative banks are much larger in size (deposits and credits) than many private banks. Unfortunately, except a few, many of the co-operative banks are financially not stable due to increased political interference, control and mismanagement. In addition, these banks tend to charge more fees and interest compared with other banks, especially nationalised banks, even from their own members.

In the US, the pressure created by enraged customers was so huge that Bank of America has to roll back its $5 privilege fee for using debit card. The reaction from savings account holders was so strongly negative that other big banks are considering a similar move announced they would not impose the fee, reports ConsumerAffairs.com

Government of India must strengthen the co-operative sector in India.

While president APJ Abdul Kalam gave a clean chit to the nuclear project (some details), India's former revenue secretary EAS Sarma has taken on his claims and punched some holes in the popular former president's statement

Maintaining that he has not come as a mediator, former president APJ Abdul Kalam, on Sunday fully backed the operation of the Kudankulan Nuclear Power Plant, saying it was ‘safe’ and was needed for the development of Tamil Nadu’s economy.

However, EAS Sarma, former secretary (power), Government of India and former adviser (energy), Planning Commission has criticised the former president’s statement. Below is the transcript of the letter Mr Sarma has written to Mr Kalam.

I refer to your highly reassuring article in The Hindu today (6 November 2011) on the safety of nuclear power. I understand that you even went to the extent of assuring the people of Kudankulam that nuclear power is ‘100% safe’. Though my knowledge of statistics is rather rudimentary, I wonder how one can make such a resounding assertion, especially when anyone with some semblance of familiarity with the technology would hesitate to assert like that!

My native place is Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh. Quite close to my place, at Kovvada, Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) proposes to set up a fairly large nuclear power plant complex. I have many genuine apprehensions about the safety of nuclear power. Now that it is coming in my backyard, my apprehensions have multiplied considerably. Such apprehensions are natural for one who is at the receiving end of such a technology, though, for those who pen articles at a distance, those apprehensions may sound like ‘comic bookish imagination’.

I understand that NPCIL has adopted a zoning system around nuclear power plants to caution the people residing in the area surrounding the plant site. I understand that the ‘exclusion’, ‘sterilised’ and ‘emergency monitoring’ zones extend up to 16 kilometres from the rim of the site. My family at Srikakulam is yet to be told about this! Perhaps, NPCIL is waiting to complete the plant before announcing this to the people at the receiving end! Your article, of course, is diplomatically silent on this. NPCIL may not like to get such trivial facts highlighted!

Knowing your stature, I have gone through your article with a great deal of care to understand how safe I am in the immediate vicinity of Kovvada ‘nuclear park’, as it is how NPCIL calls it to make it look ‘clean’ and ‘green’. At one place, you were kind enough to have made the following assertion.

“Another argument which surrounds the nuclear debate is that nuclear accidents and the radiation fallout as the aftermath would not only harm the exposed generation but also continue to impact generations to come. If available facts and scientific inquiry was given more weightage than mere conjectures and comic-bookish imagination, this argument will in all probability be proved a myth”.

You must have scanned the whole gamut of scientific literature on this subject before making such a statement. I am sure you have done it. I agree with you that scientific enquiry should be given more weightage, than impressions and conjectures. On reading every sentence of the article, I could not but help zeroing in on the following concerns that still rankles my mind.

When you brushed aside the safety concerns about nuclear technology as mere conjectures, did you make an effort to ask the nuclear establishment whether NPCIL had ever carried out a reliability engineering study of each existing nuclear power plant to estimate the compound probability of an accident taking place as a result of a mechanical failure arising from the failure of individual components? If this has not done, can you jump to the conclusion that the probability of an accident is negligible, merely on the basis of your own appreciation of the number of accidents that have taken place during the last few decades? Is not such a conclusion statistically infirm, as it is based on a highly constrained sample that could lead to a misleading estimate?

You have thankfully admitted that there is some correlation between radiation exposure and cancer risk. However, you have underplayed the possible long-term adverse impact of radioactivity on human health, especially on the human cells. Did you, by any chance, make a comprehensive survey of the available scientific literature on this subject? Can you confidently deny the fact that there are wide gaps in scientific knowledge on the likely impact of both low-intensity and high-intensity radiation on the human health, including the genetic effects? By way of an example, I have enclosed an article on the possible effect on human cells, of even low-intensity radiation that appeared in The Hindu sometime ago, just as your own article has appeared in that esteemed newspaper. I hope you have gone through the scientific literature carefully before making assertions on the health impacts.

While going eloquent on the positive aspects about nuclear technology, you did not fully cover its negative aspects. I can appreciate the reasons for this. In the case of many technologies, the technology establishments, in their anxiety to push through their technologies, tend to underplay the costs but overplay the benefits. In public policy, one should necessarily remain wary of this.

Did you make an effort to find out the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant on the basis of the plants, if any, decommissioned so far? Since you have talked about the ‘opportunity costs’, did you also make an effort to estimate the cost of managing the accumulating radioactive waste in the long run? Are you aware that these costs are difficult to quantify? The cost of decommissioning Chernobyl will never be known, as it can never be decommissioned. With foreign financial help, Russians are building a sarcophagus around the contaminated Chernobyl reactors! Till date, the cost of Fukushima is not known.

You have talked about the links between energy and economy. I hesitate to question your wisdom on this. However, I am not sure whether you are aware of the impact of efficiency improvements, demand management and other measures on the link between energy and economic development. I wish you had the opportunity of interacting with Prof Amulya Reddy of IISc on this subject, when he was alive. I would strongly advise you to read ‘Soft Energy Paths: Toward a durable peace’ by Amory B Lovins Penguin Books (1977). I benefitted a great deal by reading that thought-provoking work.

Shri Kalam, I write this letter with the intention of placing my genuine human concerns, not to find fault with your article in any manner. You are a highly erudite writer. But, to a person placed in my position or to the people living in the vicinity of the existing nuclear power plants, what matters are not articles based on pre-conceived notions but scientifically substantiated logic. I am afraid that your article raises more questions than answers!